Publications of Hannah Moshontz    :chronological  alphabetical  combined listing:

%% Journal Articles   
@article{fds325998,
   Author = {Sanchez, CE and Atkinson, KM and Koenka, AC and Moshontz, H and Cooper,
             H},
   Title = {Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative
             assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A
             meta-analysis},
   Journal = {Journal of Educational Psychology},
   Volume = {109},
   Number = {8},
   Pages = {1049-1066},
   Publisher = {American Psychological Association (APA)},
   Year = {2017},
   Month = {November},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000190},
   Abstract = {© 2017 American Psychological Association. The "assessment
             for learning" movement in education has increased attention
             to self-grading and peer-grading practices in primary and
             secondary schools. This research synthesis examined several
             questions pertaining to the use of self-grading and
             peer-grading in conjunction with criterion-referenced
             testing in 3rd- through 12th-grade-level classrooms. We
             investigated (a) the effects of students' participation in
             grading on subsequent test performance, (b) the difference
             between grades when assigned by students or teachers, and
             (c) the correlation between grades assigned by students and
             teachers. Students who engaged in self-grading performed
             better (g = .34) on subsequent tests than did students who
             did not. Moderator analyses suggested that the benefits of
             self-grading were estimated to be greater when the study
             controlled for group differences through random assignment.
             Students who engaged in peergrading performed better on
             subsequent tests than did students who did not (g = .29). On
             average, students did not grade themselves or peers
             significantly differently than teachers (self-grades, g =
             .04; peer-grades, g = .04) and showed moderate correlation
             (self-grading, r = .67; peer-grading, r = .68) with teacher
             grades. Further, other moderator analyses and examination of
             studies suggested that self- and peer-grading practices can
             be implemented to positive effect in primary and secondary
             schools with the use of rubrics and training for students in
             a formative assessment environment. However, because of a
             limited number of studies, these mediating variables need
             more research to allow more conclusive findings.},
   Doi = {10.1037/edu0000190},
   Key = {fds325998}
}

@article{fds318742,
   Author = {Atkinson, KM and Koenka, AC and Sanchez, CE and Moshontz, H and Cooper,
             H},
   Title = {Reporting standards for literature searches and report
             inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more
             transparent and easy to replicate.},
   Journal = {Research Synthesis Methods},
   Volume = {6},
   Number = {1},
   Pages = {87-95},
   Year = {2015},
   Month = {March},
   url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1127},
   Abstract = {A complete description of the literature search, including
             the criteria used for the inclusion of reports after they
             have been located, used in a research synthesis or
             meta-analysis is critical if subsequent researchers are to
             accurately evaluate and reproduce a synthesis' methods and
             results. Based on previous guidelines and new suggestions,
             we present a set of focused and detailed standards for
             reporting the methods used in a literature search. The
             guidelines cover five search strategies: reference database
             searches, journal and bibliography searches, searches of the
             reference lists of reports, citation searches, and direct
             contact searches. First, we bring together all the unique
             recommendations made in existing guidelines for research
             synthesis. Second, we identify gaps in reporting standards
             for search strategies. Third, we address these gaps by
             providing new reporting recommendations. Our hope is to
             facilitate successful evaluation and replication of research
             synthesis results.},
   Doi = {10.1002/jrsm.1127},
   Key = {fds318742}
}